A clash of attitudes colors the current debate over the extent to which the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) should apply to small public companies. The most visible argument is that small companies should not have to shoulder the same compliance burdens as large companies do, simply because they can't afford to. But that premise is being challenged by studies, derided by a number of commentators, and viewed with public skepticism even by some SEC Commissioners. It assumes that were money no object, small and large companies should be regulated the same. If that assumption is true, then any argument for relaxed compliance that hinges on expense is vulnerable. Cost seldom satisfies as a reason for not doing something that ought otherwise be done. However, it is wrong to assume that the main difference between small and large companies is how much money they have. Large and small companies play very different roles in the national economy and in the minds of investors. The very large companies really are different than their smaller brethren, and not just because they have more money.
Aegis J. Frumento'Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me,' F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote. To which Hemingway retorted, 'Yes. They have more money.'
A similar clash of attitudes colors the current debate over the extent to which the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) should apply to small public companies.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Letter Agreement Between Landlord and Tenant Did Not Extinguish GuarantyTreble Damage Award Upheld; Landlord Failed to Establish Overcharge Was Not WillfulDenying Access to Landlord Constituted Breach Entitling Landlord to PossessionTenant Entitled to Yellowstone Injunction With Respect to Taxes and Sewer Charges
New York is one of the first states to adopt laws to regulate artificial intelligence use in advertising and to strengthen post-mortem publicity rights regarding AI-generated replicas and “synthetic performers.” Given the state’s role as a bellwether for consumer-protection and advertising regulation, these new laws, combined with the state’s broader AI legislative framework, represent a shift toward transparency, consent and accountability.
State app store age verification regimes do more than reallocate responsibility between platforms and developers. They create a new data supply chain for age knowledge, one that can move COPPA questions from “do we ask age?” to “what do we do when the platform tells us?” The teams that handle this best will treat platform age signals as sensitive compliance inputs: minimize them, tightly control where they flow, and design product behavior so that minors do not trigger unnecessary collection or disclosure.
The firms leading right now chose to ask what would become possible if they managed the entire revenue lifecycle — from invoice generation to cash receipt — in one place, and what AI could actually accomplish with complete data instead of partial feeds. That is the Power of One.
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), United States v. Heppner, has generated outsized commentary suggesting that the use of generative AI tools may jeopardize attorney-client privilege. A closer reading shows something far less dramatic.
